Kelly v Leonardo Employment Tribunal Thread 3

[ickky]

If you want to observe send an email to

[email protected]

Subject line

Ms BM Kelly v Leonardo UK Limited Employment Tribunal – hearing Case number: 8001497/2024

Ask for the link and pin to observe.

State you are a member of the public and give your full name and the email address you will use to access the tribunal.

Abbreviations:
C or MK - Claimant, Maria Kelly
NC - Naomi Cunningham, barrister for C
KW - Katy Wedderburn, solicitor for C
R or L - Respondent. Leonardo UK
ST - Susanne Tanner KC, barrister for R
J - Judge
P - Panel member
GC - gender critical
GI - gender identity
AL - Andrew R Letton VP People Shared Services Leonardo - respondent witness

Tribunal Tweets coverage here

https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/kelly-vs-leonardo-uk-ltd

Thread 1 https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5416903-kelly-v-leonardo-employment-tribunal-29th-september-10am?page=1

Thread 2 https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5420656-kelly-v-leonardo-employment-tribunal-thread-2?page=1

EEF Ltd is the actual company name for MakeUk. There seem to be a number of subsidiary companies as well

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/05950172/filing-history

This was published just this month: https://www.makeuk.org/news-and-events/news/hr-and-employment-law-faqs-september-2025

And also: www.makeuk.org/insights/blogs/updated-ehrc-code-services-following-women-scotland

"Make UK has been pressing the Government and EHRC (including in our consultation response) for urgent, but well thought out, guidance for employers on toilet/changing facilities. We know that employers – including many of our members – are grappling with how they can act lawfully and be fair to different employees in their workforce. Employers require guidance about how to manage their obligations to all their employees, including trans and non-gender confirming employees, those who feel strongly about having ‘single-sex spaces’, and those with particular philosophical or religious beliefs."

Yes, they certainly are grappling with this - and now their members are ending up in employment tribunals thanks to Make UK's advice.

If you believe 'fair' means 'not letting women have single sex spaces' you're fucked really.

Most people didn’t go to university back in the 70s and 80s. An apprenticeship was a highly respected, and being a toolmaker was and is an elite trade in itself. Toolmakers have to understand the tools other trades use in order to make them.

A small story unconnected to trades and apprenticeships. In the 80s I was in my late twenties, already degree qualified and working in computing at a university in Scotland. I went to some electronics evening classes. Everyone but me was doing the classes as part of day release alongside their apprenticeship. I was middle class white English. All the others were young Scotsmen, one of Asian heritage. The white guys sat together. The Asian heritage lad and I sat a bench together. One evening we had a session on multimeters, colloquially known as AVOs for what they measure - amps, volts and ohms. My benchmate asked me if I’d ever used one. I told him I had one at home. With a startled look he said “What are you?” as if I’d just revealed a second head.

Interesting. I sent this text to my favourite academic source (first degrees and DPhil from Oxford, currently a senior lecturer at another university)

I read in a group I frequent online that associate professors are now being referred to as Professor, eg Prof Adam Brown. This is to be polite, and has spread from the US. Would you agree?

His reply was
no!

He left Oxford about 10 years ago. That must be too long.

Although, I understand that Oxford (and Cambridge, and probably some other places) now call their lecturers assistant and associate professors where they used to be called lecturer and senior lecturer.

(I did not specify the group because reasons)

Going by a recent case MI5 seemed very happy to employ, and indeed protect, someone guilty of serious domestic violence.

Oh I see why it is called 'Make' UK now - engineering - making things..
I was beginning to think it was 'make' as in 'on the..'😄

He could easily not have been aware, especially if he was not eligible himself, but this goes back more than 10 years. Here's a Wikipedia page on it, though some of its reference links seem to be dead. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titles_of_distinction_awarded_by_the_University_of_Oxford

In the 1990s he wasn’t old enough for secondary school. 😀

By my understanding, those Titles of Distinction are Professor Something rather than Associate or Assistant Professor, though.

It does explain his mentioning a few months ago that a couple of SLs we both know are applying to be professors this year. Until then I had thought you had to wait until the previous holder of the chair moved on, or someone endowed another chair.

I have been following on TT and here, not listening.
I am not surprised that an HR bod was starting from the assumption that tw should use the ladies loos, and he wasnt able to shake that even as the SC ruling came in. It was so ingrained among those who influence such policies, it even went unsaid. That was the position adopted by bodies that he would have listened to for years and years. Other HR professionals, CIPD, trade unions, citizens advice, the EHRC, acas, govrrnment departments, the lower courts. And of course stonewall who were being treated as "experts". Over years they were all misrepresenting the law and what the pc's of sex and gender reassignment actually entail. So this guy was a follower rather than a leader on this issue. It's good we are seeing how this has worked in organisations and hopefully other hr bods will take note. He should have woken up once he heard of the SC ruling and at least one employee was unhappy with the arrangements. He should have put 2 and 2 together. There will be hundreds of heads of hr who did the same thing, they are lucky not to be the case law.

It's astonishing that he is the only defence witness. I guess he's earning his salary but I cant believe no one else would be able to contribute.

It's common for engineers (even ones with phd's that i know) to read quite slowly. That doesn't mean they are thick.

It's common for engineers (even ones with phd's that i know) to read quite slowly. That doesn't mean they are thick.

It can mean they are reading very carefully, as I would want to if I were acting as a witness.

Hard agree. I recall during the Peggie trib, he (or rather his prompts+ChatGPT) got the implication of something absolutely topsy turvily upside down and back to front - can't now recall what, but it was so unhelpful. He is just in too much of a rush to publish his "take" to the masses.

Plus it's so over-egged and dramatic, to play to the home crowd in the gallery. I don't want someone giving me what they think I want to hear. It's the antithesis of the scrupulous, careful work of TT and others.

I would dearly like to know what his prompt "recipe" is. "Make it more pompous, more baroque.. Like a town crier doing a blow by blow account of an Old Firm game..."?

Thank you for this. It's nice to know that he is a lovely guy. I can only assume then that he's in a similar position to where I was four years ago, before I had a personal reason to dig deeper into trans stuff, because he's demonstrated the same ignorance that I had. If he's genuinely a lovely guy, then I would expect him to have been quite shocked at NC's probing questions, and he should start thinking very carefully about what he's been told and what he's assumed. Women (and some other groups of people) have been ignored - as soon as "trans" has been mentioned, organisations have forgotten that trans people are not the only ones who can be vulnerable or hurt.

But both sides are so emotive because you both believe you are the most vulnerable.

I don't think this is a fair representation of the consensus (to the extent there is one) on FWR. Women don't have to be the most vulnerable to require their needs to be considered. And I doubt if all trans identifying people think of themselves as the most vulnerable, despite the hype of the last ten years. There is no doubt that some are vulnerable, but for those I know personally they appear to have to some extent swallowed the constant victim narrative that they are fed. It is very easy to make oneself a downtrodden victim who is always badly treated, and to assume that anyone who disagrees with you hates you. Of the two trans people I know well, one has eventually reached a point of accepting that people who disagree on gender identity are not necessarily bad. The other seems unable yet to be able to debate different understandings, and therefore has to object to "bigotry" because not to do so would require an attempt to understand why disagreement may be justified, that other worldviews may have some merit.

I'm quite late to the case, but I have to say, at least this Andy R man seems to be honest. Never thought of the impact of women before, but when forced to think, he's admitting why he was wrong all along rather fair and square.

This is the personification of why the TRAs were screaming "No Debate" all over the place.

I'm very curious to know why AL was told not to look at social media or something like that, more so given the poster above defending him. Was that poster told to do so?

It's astonishing that he is the only defence witness. I guess he's earning his salary but I cant believe no one else would be able to contribute.

Most of them will have heard of NHS Fife and NC and when AR came forward (or drew the short straw) I bet they said "yes Andy, you're just the man for the job, glad a top man like you is dealing with it, we're all a long way behind you."

Employers require guidance about how to manage their obligations to all their employees, including trans and non-gender confirming employees, those who feel strongly about having ‘single-sex spaces’, and those with particular philosophical or religious beliefs."

Not to mention their obligations to menopausal women. Which Make UK certainly didn't mention.

Both NHS Fife and Leonardo's discrimination cases were sparked because employers failed to recognise the needs of menopausal women. Even though Leonardo had bought into some kind of menopause awareness they still didn't give women the privacy they need to manage menstrual flooding which is a common (not universal) effect of perimenopause, with separate basins as well as toilets. I wonder if "awareness" includes this.

And even when it's just about "wanting to pee" men and women have different need. As they age both men and women get urinary urgency. For women it's associated with menopause (as well as pregnancy and maternity, which is also a protected characteristic, lest we forget) for men it's often prostate. But women always have to sit down, men don't. A man with urgency can use a urinal or stand above a toilet, a woman can't. It's not compatible with women's dignity (or safety or privacy) to have to rush to find a private toilet and without time clean urine off the seat before sitting down (which they shouldn't have to do but if men share the toilets....)

AR seemed to be saying very proudly that his employer had prioritised the preferences (or what his employer imagined to be the preferences) of a very small number of young people who they wanted to recruit over the needs of their female employees and especially older (or pregnant) female employees.

That's age as well as sex (and pregnancy) discrimination.

(edited for typos)

Most engineers I know read the instructions before they start anything. Then they read them again and make sure they understand. He didn't even read the bundle before he turned up. I'm not sure if it was overconfidence or a total lack of understanding. All too often it seems to mean equality = give the LGBT what they want. I'm currently trying to explain to our local hospital that disabled people are entitled to pre-emptive reasonable adjustments, such as 'don't send them an hours drive away when they live across the road from a hospital that offers the same service.' Heavens, I've even suggested that doing that is environmentally friendly and makes a better patient experience. I am such a bad person,aren't I? More Tunnocks arriving shortly.

If he's never thought of women before then what the (insert expletive of choice) is he doing running HR? He had a mother, didn't he? He might even have sisters, daughters and a wife. Plus he knows that it's important to attract women to the work force. Any HR being who can't list all the protected characteristics and understand that there is no heirarchy ought to be urgently looking for another job.

@OnAShooglyPeg Had a good answer for this question, and i think she’s right.

Basically, the Judge is supposed to tell any witness, after they’ve been sworn in, not to look at any SM, etc.
And she couldn’t remember if she’d actually done it, so, she was keen to remedy it.

I think as most of the recent cases have been Scotland, most HR who work nationally or in E&W aren't paying attention. I don't think there's as much media coverage outside of England and the BBC are biased on the matter.
That may change with the darlington nurses case which is in England - there may be more national coverage.

This is what i said yesterday.

He might well not have heard of Maya, but he must have been living under a rock not to have heard of Sandi; particularly in Scotland.

I reckon that he was also under the impression that you couldn’t say no to the T.
They are super speshul, lest we forget!

As a wise man on Twitter once posted…

Most of them will have heard of NHS Fife and NC and when AR came forward (or drew the short straw) I bet they said "yes Andy, you're just the man for the job, glad a top man like you is dealing with it, we're all a long way behind you."

I agree, I’m sure they’re well aware how foolish NHS Fife witnesses have looked under NC cross examination . They couldn’t risk headlines of Leonardo staff not knowing what sex they are!
I think they’re just trying to get through this as quickly and with as little publicity as possible.

Either Maria loses and they don’t have to change anything or she wins and they can then introduce changes, blaming her the judge which will be more palatable